5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Košice.
6.  On 5 February 2004 the applicant living with her two sons who were students initiated proceedings before the Košice II District Court on contribution to her maintenance by her husband. She claimed that she was unemployed and her state of health did not allow her to work.
7.  The Košice II District Court scheduled a hearing for 14 September 2005.
8.  On 28 June 2005 the applicant’s husband raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Košice II District Court claiming that he lived and worked in Veľký Krtíš.
9.  On 5 August 2005 the matter was transmitted to the Veľký Krtíš District Court.
10.  Between 9 February 2006 and 6 May 2008 the Veľký Krtíš District Court scheduled six hearings. The applicant had excused herself for not being able to appear before the court since her financial situation did not allow her to pay for the journey from her place of residence to the District Court’s seat. On that account, the Veľký Krtíš District Court requested the Košice II District Court to hear the applicant. The applicant was heard by the latter court three times.
11.  On 9 May 2006 the applicant requested that the case be dealt with by the Košice II District Court. She argued that other proceedings linked to her family situation – divorce, maintenance of the applicant’s and her husband’s children and distribution of marital property – were pending before that court. She further submitted that she had no income and lived in Košice. Being in material need she stressed that she would not be able to travel to Veľký Krtíš which was situated some 200 kilometer4s from Košice.
12.  On 24 July 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court requested the applicant to pay court fees for her request to transfer the case.
13.  On 4 August 2006 the applicant in her response sought an exemption from the obligation to pay them.
14.  On 10 August 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court informed the applicant that according to the existing legal regulation it was not possible to exempt her request to transmit the case from the obligation to pay the court fees.
15.  Following the applicant’s repeated request, on 4 September 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court warned the applicant that in case of a failure to pay the court fees the request would not be dealt with.
16.  On 14 September 2006 the applicant again asked to be exempted from the obligation to pay the court fees.
17.  On 2 October 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court refused to grant the exemption. On 31 October 2006 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision and ordered the Veľký Krtíš District Court to examine the applicant’s financial situation.
18.  On 6 March 2007 the Veľký Krtíš District Court granted the exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees.
19.  On 19 April 2007 the Veľký Krtíš District Court transmitted the case file to the Supreme Court to decide on the applicant’s request.
20.  On 26 April 2007 the Supreme Court returned the case file to the Veľký Krtíš District Court since the court had failed to bring forward the defendant’s observation to the applicant’s request.
21.  On 7 May 2007 the defendant submitted his disagreement with transfer of the case.
22.  On 14 May 2007 the case file was again transmitted to the Supreme Court which on 16 May 2007 dismissed the applicant’s request.
23.  On 21 May 2007 the case file was returned to the Veľký Krtíš District Court.
24.  On 25 June 2007 the applicant again requested that the case be transferred to the Košice II District Court. She submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings had any longer residence in Veľký Krtíš and that her financial situation did not allow her to appear before the Veľký Krtíš District Court.
25.  On 10 August 2007 the matter was transmitted to the Supreme Court which on 3 September 2007 refused to grant the applicant’s request.
26.  On 17 September 2007 the case file returned to the Veľký Krtíš District Court.
27.  On 29 November 2007 the Veľký Krtíš District Court adjourned a hearing and sent the case file to the Košice II District Court to enable the applicant to consult it.
28.  On 3 February 2009 the Veľký Krtíš District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant and the defendant appealed.
29.  On 30 April 2009 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the judgment. It became final on 13 June 2009.
30.  In April 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about delays in the proceedings before both the Košice II District Court and the Veľký Krtíš District Court.
31.  On 10 April 2008 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint related to the proceedings pending before the Veľký Krtíš District Court. At the same time, it rejected the part of the complaint concerning the proceedings before the Košice II District Court as belated. It held that the proceedings before the latter court had ended on 5 August 2005 when the matter was transmitted to the other District Court. The applicant had learned about it on 3 January 2006 at the latest, when she was summoned to appear before the Veľký Krtíš District Court.
32.  On 2 October 2008 the Constitutional Court decided that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time before the Veľký Krtíš District Court had not been violated. It concluded that the case was not complex and that the applicant by her conduct had significantly contributed to the delay. As to the conduct of the District Court, the Constitutional Court held that, except for a period of five months of delays when dealing with the applicant’s request to be exempted from the obligation to pay the court fees, the District Court had been dealing with the case in an appropriate manner. Thus the delays in the proceedings could not be considered as unreasonable within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
33.  On 4 August 2009 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court again mainly about the outcome of the proceedings.
34.  On 23 September 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint as being manifestly ill-founded.